2 The Center for Health Information & Research (CHiR) is a multidisciplinary research team at Arizona State University. CHiR provides actionable information about health and health care to our community, health care providers and payers, researchers, public health and other community organizations. For more information about CHiR s current initiatives as well as downloadable publications, please visit or us at Project Team Professor & Founder of CHiR William G. Johnson, PhD Senior Statistical Programmer Gevork Harootunian, BS Senior Coordinator Tameka Sama, MBA Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of Lisa Wynn of the Arizona Medical Board (AMB) and Elaine LeTarte, formerly of the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners (ABOE). The ABOE, under the leadership of Jenna Jones is continuing its cooperation with the ongoing survey of physicians. Special thanks to James Gentile and Pushpa Gregory of the AMB for their excellent and enthusiastic technical support. Helpful comments were provided by Dr. Ronald Weinstein of the University of Arizona. 2

5 Executive Summary The percentage of Arizona physicians using electronic medical records (EMRs) increased from approximately 45% in to approximately 80% in The current trend suggests that, with very few exceptions, Arizona physicians will be using EMRs by The incentives and support provided by Medicare and Medicaid, combined with other influences, have succeeded in increasing EMR adoption, but important obstacles remain. The expected benefits of EMRs, such as the avoidance of duplicative tests, require the exchange of information among health care providers. However, among physicians for whose EMRs include options such as patient care summaries, e- prescribing and others, less than 20% to slightly more than 47% of the physicians share the information with other health care organizations, depending on the type of information being shared. The most important obstacle to inter-organizational transfers of electronic health information is the shortage of Health Information Exchanges (HIEs). The Health Information Network of Arizona (HINAZ) is one such HIE. Although HINAZ currently serves only thirty-three participants, it continues to expand and its future is hopeful. This report is the first in the CHiR series to include physician rankings of EMRs by brand. EMRs were ranked on a 1-5 scale where 1=awful and 5=outstanding. Twenty five different EMR packages were ranked on each of five criteria. Media articles and discussions among HIE professionals suggest that physicians are very dissatisfied with their EMRs. The results presented here differ, indicating that physicians are somewhat positive about their EMRs with rankings averaging slightly more than the midpoint in the 1-5 scale. A more accurate conclusion may be that physicians want EMRs improved but recognize that EMRs offer advantages not available from scanned or paper medical records. We plan to implement new survey questions at the end of the current renewal cycle in April Many of the new questions will focus on the use of and obstacles to the exchange of information among physicians who use EMRs. The new survey will include an enhanced focus on Medicaid providers. 5

6 6

7 Introduction It is widely believed that increased use of EMRs will improve the quality of health care and reduce costs (Chaudhry, et al. 2006; Sequist, et al. 2007). That belief led to the creation of the Arizona Health-e Connection and is one of the major objectives of The State of Arizona Health Information Exchange awarded in 2010 to the Arizona Governor s Office of Economic Recovery. Funds from this award were distributed to AHCCCS, Arizona s single Medicaid agency. This is one of a continuing series of reports designed to help the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) and other stakeholders to encourage the expanded use of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) and develop regional Health Information Exchanges (HIEs). This report describes patterns of EMR utilization, the extent to which EMR data are exchanged among health care providers, and the values placed on EMRs by users and non-users. This report also distinguishes between physicians who influence decisions to implement EMRs and physicians who are not decision makers. Physicians evaluations of their EMRs are included for the first time in this series. Background Studies of EMR utilization have increased since 2005 but most use neither comparable definitions of an EMR nor comparable samples. We summarize several of the better known studies in Appendix A to this report. Additional, but not strictly comparable, information is available from a meta-analysis of national surveys of physician adoption of EMRs between 1994 and It estimated that, in 2005, approximately 24% of physicians used EMRs, but only 9% of the EMRs in use included functions such as e-prescribing (Jha, Ferris, et al. 2006). A consistent set of estimates is produced by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) surveys of ambulatory care physicians in office settings. It is important to recognize that the estimates apply to only one segment of the physicians in this study. The exclusions include physicians in federal facilities and a number of specialty practices. The percentage of office based physicians using some form of EMR in the United States increased from 48% in 2009 to 72% in 2012 (Hsiao and Hing 2012). The results from the NAMC survey estimate that more than 82% of physicians in office based practices in Arizona used some form of EMR in 2012 (Hsiao and Hing 2012). 7

8 The CHiR Survey of Physicians This report and its predecessors are made possible by an ongoing partnership between the physician licensing boards in Arizona and Arizona State University s Center for Health Information & Research (CHiR). Beginning in 1992, the licensing boards permitted CHiR to add survey questions to license applications from physicians. With few exceptions, the data have been collected continuously since Previous reports and articles from the survey are listed in Appendix F. The voluntary survey responses are merged with the licensing data collected by the boards for each physician. The licensing data for non-respondents to the survey permits a rigorous analysis of non-response bias. The survey questions change over time and among different project sponsors. AHCCCS and the Arizona Strategic Enterprise Technology (ASET), an agency of the State of Arizona, have provided financial support for the project since The survey was changed in July 2007 to focus on the use of EMRs and the influences affecting decisions to adopt EMRs. The 2007 survey was implemented with minimal pre-testing to accumulate information as early in the two year allopathic renewal cycle as possible and to capture the once in every two year renewal cycle for osteopathic physicians that included Fall The objective was to provide AHCCCS with estimates for targeting its campaign to expand the use of EMRs as quickly as possible. The rapid implementation of the survey was possible by the enthusiastic cooperation of the Directors and staff of the Arizona Medical Board (AMB) and the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners (ABOE). Short paper survey forms were used from 1992 through July 2009, greatly restricting the number and complexity of survey questions. The 2007 paper survey consisted, for example, of six questions. The licensing boards converted to electronic applications in 2009, but a large number of physicians continued to use paper surveys and funding was not available to create an electronic survey. (See Appendix B for a copy of the survey instrument.) Results for the period July 2007 to July 2009 are described in a previous CHiR report (Johnson, Qiu, et al. 2010). A new electronic survey was implemented in early 2012 with funding from AHCCCS and ASET. The electronic survey includes a greatly expanded set of questions and a large number of 8

9 decision trees, including different questions for physicians with Arizona licenses who practice outside the state. Many of the questions on the new survey duplicate questions used in national surveys, such as the NCHS and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) surveys, to permit direct comparisons to the national data. A copy of the new survey instrument is included in Appendix C. The periods of data collection discussed in this report are: represents July 17, 2007 to July 17, represents November 1, 2009 to November 1, represents March 20, 2012 to April 29, represents July 2007 to April 2013 The period between November 1, 2011 and March 20, 2012 was used to deploy the new electronic survey. The current two year renewal cycle data will be complete on March 20, Some studies of EMR adoption identify the number of practices with EMRs, while this report counts the number of physicians with EMRs, as does the NCHS. Estimates of the number of physicians using EMRs is the most direct measure of potential impact on patients, but the number of practices is a more useful measure of the impact on organizations. A 2007 Massachusetts study is a good example of the effects of larger practices on physician counts (Simon, et al. 2007). The study reported that almost half of Massachusetts physicians used EMRs, but less than one-quarter of practices in Massachusetts had adopted EMRs. Definitions Active license: The licensing boards define active physicians as those whose license has not expired or been suspended. Some physicians renew their licenses after retirement or while on leave. The distinction between physicians with an active license and those who are actively practicing medicine is only obtainable from responses to the survey. The true status of physicians who do not respond to the survey is, therefore, unknown. Survey respondents who indicate that they are retired or semi-retired/on leave physicians with active licenses are excluded from all but the initial descriptions of physician characteristics. 9

10 Electronic Medical Record: Physicians were given the opportunity to select any or all of the possible methods of storing their medical records. The specific survey question is: Note: Check boxes are provided for more than 21 types of EMRs with an open ended response for others. This question is much more specific than the question on previous surveys which was thought to be too general, allowing some respondents to mistakenly include billing software as an EMR. The previous question was: Therefore, comparisons between the current results and data based on the short survey question are not, be strictly comparable. Specialty: Physicians can report more than one specialty to the licensing boards, and they need not be board certified in the reported specialty. We adopt the first specialty reported and do not classify physicians by multiple specialties. Pediatric Specialties are defined as pediatricians or physicians practicing a pediatric subspecialty. Surgical Specialties are defined to include surgeons or any surgical subspecialty. Hospital Based Specialties include critical care medicine, diagnostic imaging and radiology, emergency medicine, hospitalist medicine, infectious disease, neonatology, respiratory care, transport medicine, anesthesiology, intensive care medicine, pathology, nuclear medicine, rehab and occupational medicine, or radiation oncology. Primary Care is defined to include family care, general practice, geriatrics, or internal medicine. All other specialties are defined as Medical Specialties, including obstetrics and gynecology, following the conventions used by AHCCCS. 10

11 Type of Practice: The categories used from were expanded and revised for the new electronic survey to be more internally consistent. Categories defined in terms of physician activity (e.g. semi-retired; locum tenens) were removed and replaced by categories representing the type of practice/organization in which a physician works. Thus, the type of practice data prior to 2012 is not strictly comparable to the data collected after March Survey Sample The number of physician renewals and survey respondents is described in Figure 1. A total of 13,938 physicians renewed their licenses between March 20, 2012 and April 29, Allopathic physicians renew their licenses every two years on their birthdays, and osteopathic physicians renew their licenses every other year, so the results represent approximately onehalf of the physicians in the renewal cycle. The results should be representative of all Arizona physicians, assuming that the distribution of license renewals over the two year period does not have a systematic bias in renewal dates. There is no guarantee, however, that the responses to some survey questions will not differ between the first and second year of the renewal cycle. The renewals included 9,488 physicians who live in Arizona and 4,312 physicians with Arizona licenses who live outside the State. There were 146 physicians whose state of residence could not be identified. Survey responses were received from 8,648 physicians living in Arizona. Of those, 8,276 physicians were identified as being in active practice. These respondents include 7,470 allopathic physicians and 806 osteopathic physicians. 11

12 Figure 1. Active Physicians, ,476 Total Physicians 13,938 Total Physician License Renewals 146 Physician States Cannot Be Identified 4,312 Licensed Physicians Residing Outside of AZ 9,488 Licensed Physicians Living in AZ 8,648 Physician Surveys Received (91% Response Rate) 372 Retired/Semiretired Physicians 8,276 Active Physicians 806 Osteopathic Physicians 7,470 Allopathic Physicians Source: Arizona Medical Board (AMB), Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners (ABOE) Survey and Administrative Data, Because all physicians renewing Arizona licenses have the opportunity to complete a survey, the number of respondents is substantially larger than the number obtained from the usual practice of sampling a small percentage of the renewals. If, for example, a twenty percent sample of renewals was drawn and the % of renewals in state was the same; and the response rate was 91% then the survey results would include 1,727 physicians rather than the 8,648 physician respondents represented in our results. Sample percentages are typically much lower than 20% and response rates of 60% or more are considered adequate for surveys. The NCHS survey, for example, used approximately 3,180 physicians to represent all office practice based physicians in the United States (Jamoom, et al. 2012). 12

13 Our very large sample minimizes the need to rely on small numbers of responses to some questions on the survey, and it reduces the variance surrounding estimates. In other words, the results are more certain. Response Bias The sample is quite large and the response rate is very high but the best test of the extent to which a survey represents a population is a comparison of the respondents to the nonrespondents. Since we have licensing data on all physicians, we can make that comparison. The data described in Table 1 compare respondents to all members of the Arizona physician population rather than the usual comparison of respondents to all physicians who renewed their licenses in the first one-half of the renewal cycle. Thus, the non-respondents in our comparisons include physicians who have not yet received the survey because they have yet to file for renewal of their licenses. The non-respondents also include retired or semi-retired physicians with active licenses. The identification of these physicians is only possible using answers to the survey questions. The inclusion of retired physicians and physicians not scheduled for renewal at the time of this survey is a much stricter test of response bias than the usual comparisons. There are a few significant differences between respondents and all Arizona physicians. Physicians aged are slightly overrepresented in the survey results and physicians in the and 65+ groups are slightly underrepresented among survey respondents. Physician with hospital specialities are slightly less likely to be respondents than physicians in other specialty groups. Physicians in Maricopa County are slightly underrepresented. The differences are small and since many of the non-respondents are not yet eligible to respond to the survey, the results are representative of the physician population, subject to very small variations. The comparisons between respondents and non-respondents for previous years are summarized in Appendix D. The results in previous years include complete renewal cycles rather than the partial cycle represented by the current results. 13

15 One potential source of response bias is the fact that physicians in the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system or the Indian Health Service (IHS) are not required to have an Arizona license unless they also practice outside the federal systems. We tested for potential omissions of federal physicians in a previous report by comparing physicians who indicated employment in a government setting on the survey to a then recent HRSA report showing that 500 physicians were employed in the VA or IHS systems in Arizona (Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2007). The HRSA report showed that 38.8% (194/500) of Arizona physicians (MD) with a federal license practiced in primary care during The number of Arizona physicians who reported working in a government setting on the CHiR/AHCCCS survey was 390 MDs and 43 DOs. Weighting the survey responses to population totals indicated that approximately 853 physicians with Arizona licenses worked in a government setting. The estimate included all government settings, not just the VA and IHS, but comparisons with the HRSA report suggest that the relatively large number from the survey data implies that most of the federally employed physicians had Arizona licenses. Unfortunately, HRSA has not published more recent reports that would permit an update of these results. Subject to some uncertainty about the current numbers of physicians who work in federal government settings but who are not licensed in Arizona, the survey results are, reasonably representative of all osteopathic physicians and allopathic physicians practicing in Arizona in Note: From this point forward, retired and semi-retired/on leave physicians are excluded from all subsequent results in this report. Physician Characteristics The licensing board data are available for each of the 9,448 physicians who lived in Arizona and who renewed their licenses between March 2012 and April There were 8,648 of these physicians who responded to the survey. Of those, approximately 8,276 are in active practice. Each survey respondent represents approximately 1.14 physicians who renewed their licenses in Except where noted, the results are un-weighted counts and percentages because our primary interest is in the averages, which do not change if weighted, rather than the absolute number of responses. 15

18 Practice Settings Table 4. Type of Practice by DO and MD, Type of Practice MD DO Total Physician Owned Solo Practice 1,132 (17.7%) 121 (17.5%) 1,253 (17.7%) Physician Owned Group Practice 2,178 (34.1%) 244 (35.3%) 2,422 (34.2%) Hospital/Medical School Group Practice 963 (15.1%) 101 (14.6%) 1,064 (15.0%) Community or Rural Health Center 330 (5.2%) 35 (5.1%) 365 (5.2%) Federal Government Hospital or Clinic 292 (4.6%) 28 (4.0%) 320 (4.5%) Private Hospital System 476 (7.5%) 56 (8.1%) 532 (7.5%) Non-Hospital Private Outpatient Facility 175 (2.7%) 35 (5.1%) 210 (3.0%) Medical School, University Research Center 293 (4.6%) 12 (1.7%) 305 (4.3%) Health Insurer/Pharmacy/Health Related Organization without Provision of Care 75 (1.2%) 8 (1.2%) 83 (1.2%) State or County Hospital System 53 (0.8%) 6 (0.9%) 59 (0.8%) Other 421 (6.6%) 46 (6.6%) 467 (6.6%) Total 6,388 (100.0%) 692 (100.0%) 7,080 (100.0%) Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: 1,196 physicians did not report type of practice (missing). Percentages are based on responses. Table 4 shows the distribution of physicians by type of practice. More than 34% of physicians work in physician owned group practices, followed by 17.6% of physicians in solo practices. Hospital or Medical School owned group practices accounted for an additional 15% of the physicians. In total, more than two-thirds of Arizona physicians work in solo or group practices. Physicians were rather thinly distributed among the other eight practice types. The prevalence of solo practice is declining in Arizona, in part due to acquisitions of practices by hospital systems. The percentage of physicians in solo practice dropped from 24% in to slightly more than 17% in Solo practice physicians are, all else equal, much less likely to adopt EMRs than are physicians in other practice settings. All else equal, utilization rates of EMRs will continue to increase as the percentage of physicians in solo practice declines. 18

19 There are few differences in the distribution of MDs and DOs by type of practice. The exceptions include Private Outpatient Facilities where the percentage of DO s is nearly double that of MDs and Medical Schools where MDs are much more likely than DOs to be employed. Should the trend in the expansion of osteopathic medical schools in Arizona continue, it is likely that the differences between MDs and DOs in that category will narrow. Figure 4. Type of Practice by DO, MD, Physician Owned Solo Practice Physician Owned Group Practice Hospital/Medical School Group Practice Community or Rural Health Center Federal Government Hospital or Clinic Private Hospital System Non-Hospital Private Outpatient Facility Medical School, University Research Center Health Insurer/Pharmacy/Health Related Organization without Provision of Care State or County Hospital System Other 17.5% 17.7% 14.6% 15.1% 5.1% 5.2% 4.0% 4.6% 8.1% 7.5% 5.1% 2.7% 1.7% 4.6% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 6.6% 6.6% 35.3% 34.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% DO (N = 692) MD (N = 6,388) Source: AMB, ABOE Survey data, Note: 1,196 Physicians did not report type of practice (missing). Percentages are based on responses. 19

21 Table 7. Methods of Communication by Renewal Period, Method N = 6, N = 11, N = 6,699 Number % Number % Number % 6, % 9, % 5, % Internet 6, % 9, % 5, % Fax 6, % 10, % 6, % Medifax NA NA % % U.S. Mail 6, % NA NA NA NA None of the Above 0 0.0% % % Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, , , Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive. 78 physicians did not respond to this question ; 1,081 physicians did not respond ; 1,660 physicians did not respond Medifax was removed as a method of communication for the data and U.S. Mail was added. A surprisingly large number of physicians lacked access to the internet or in the early years of the survey. As recently as , nearly 15% of the physicians practicing in Arizona did not have internet access. The rapid increases in internet access shown in Table 7 remove an important obstacle to the exchange of EMR information. Given the very high levels of access, we will discontinue publication of these results in the future. Characteristics of EMR Users The survey expanded the set of questions on the types of practices in which physicians are employed (Table 8). The results, with the exception of solo practice, are not strictly comparable to the estimates from previous years. The fact that solo practitioners have the lowest rates of EMR utilization relative to other practice types occurs in our previous surveys and in national studies. In absolute terms, however, EMR use by solo practitioners is rapidly increasing in Arizona. The utilization rate among solo practitioners increased from approximately 26% in to approximately 54% in The most recent rate is substantially higher than the NCHS estimate of 29% of all office based physicians in solo practice (Jamoom, et al. 2012). The national average is for a slightly earlier period (2011) and national averages are not representative of any particular state, but the difference is quite large and deserves additional investigation. 21

22 As expected, the highest utilization rate occurs in federal health systems with physicians associated followed by medical schools. Physicians in community health centers have essentially as high a utilization rate as those in medical school practices, presumably reflecting the effects of a number of federal and state incentive programs directed to community health centers and to rural areas. Physicians in private hospital systems and state or county systems are the next most highly ranked utilizers of EMRs. Table 8. EMR Utilization by Type of Practice, (N = 5,323) Type of Practice Utilization Rates Physician Owned Solo Practice 53.9% Physician Owned Group Practice 78.6% Hospital or Medical School Physician Group Practice 91.7% Community or Rural Health Center 91.3% Government Health Organization (VA, Indian Health Service, etc.) 95.8% Private Hospital System 87.4% Non-Hospital Private Outpatient Facility 76.5% Medical School/University/Research Center 91.6% Health Insurer/Pharmacy/Health Related without Provision of Care State or County Hospital System 85.9% Other 69.2% NA Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: Rates = % of physicians within each practice type. 1,196 respondents were missing type of practice. The distribution of EMR users by County is described in Figure 5. We characterize Maricopa and Pima counties as urban areas because they include the largest metropolitan areas in Arizona. However, both counties are quite large and both include areas where population density is quite low. The percentage of physicians who use EMRs ranges from 37.5% in La Paz County to 100% in Greenlee County. The number of practicing physicians ranges from 1 to 3,918 (Maricopa). 22

23 The utilization rate in Maricopa County is the second lowest in the state. The relatively high adoption rates in many of the rural counties is likely the result of aggressive campaigns, including financial incentives, that have been directed to rural health care providers by CMS and the State of Arizona. Figure 5. EMR Utilization by County (N = 6,420) Pima Maricopa Yuma Yavapai 81.1% 77.5% 78.9% 87.4% Santa Cruz 100.0% Pinal 83.5% Navajo Mohave 70.7% 78.8% La Paz 37.5% Greenlee 100.0% Graham Gila Coconino Cochise Apache 84.2% 82.4% 79.7% 77.8% 76.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: Approximately 1,468 respondents did not identify a method of storing medical records and 388 were of unknown county. Pima and Maricopa Counties (red) represent the urban areas. All other counties in blue represent the rural areas. 23

24 The Utilization of Electronic Medical Records Trends in the utilization of EMRs are described in Table 9. A serious problem with the new reporting software for the survey in required the application of utilization rates from the paper surveys to the electronic survey data. The paper surveys represented a substantial portion of the total responses in that time period, but the potential agreement between the paper and electronic results could not be validated. The overall results for that period can be interpreted with a reasonable level of confidence, but the results for some individual characteristics are subject to uncertainty. The most directly comparable results are between and Table 9. Methods of Storing Medical Records by Renewal Period Method N = 5,709 Number % of total Yes N = 2,137; W = 8,996 Weighted % of total Yes N = 6,387 Number % of total Yes Paper Files Only % 3, % 2, % EMR Only % 1, % % Scanned Images Only % % % Paper + Scanned Images Only % % % EMR + Paper Only % % % EMR + Scanned Images Only 1, % 1, % % Paper + Scanned Images + EMR 2, % 1, % % EMR alone or in combination* 4, % 4, % 2, % Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, ; ; Note: The 2011 weight = The 2011 estimates are subject to substantially more uncertainty than the other renewal period data. Respondents who did not identify a method of storing medical records (missing): 390 for and 2,567 for *Data on EMR alone or in combination is not mutually exclusive from other categories. 24

25 Figure 6. Methods of Storing Medical Records by Renewal Period EMR alone or in combination 52.3% 45.1% 80.4% Paper + Scanned Images + EMR EMR + Scanned Images Only EMR + Paper Only Paper + Scanned Images Only Scanned Images Only EMR Only Paper Files Only 13.4% 12.4% 16.8% 11.6% 2.6% 6.6% 7.6% 6.3% 4.8% 6.2% 1.2% 2.4% 3.2% 6.5% 18.6% 13.4% 12.0% 39.1% 32.1% 37.3% 45.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% N = 5, N = 2,137; W = 8, N = 6,387 Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, ; ; Note: Respondents who did not identify a method of storing medical records (missing): 390 for and 2,567 for *Data on EMR alone or in combination is not mutually exclusive from other categories. The uncertainty in the estimates notwithstanding, the trend to increasing reliance on EMRs, often in combination with paper or scanned medical records, is quite clear. The percentage of physicians using EMRs increased from approximately 45% in to approximately 80% in The trend in Arizona is consistent with trends in the use of EMRs in the United States. The percentage of office based physicians using some form of EMR in the United States increased from 48% in 2009 to 72% in 2012 (Hsiao and Hing 2012). 25

26 The national data from the NAMC survey are not strictly comparable since they represent only a portion of the physicians included in our survey. The exclusions include physicians in federal facilities where the utilization rates of EMRs approach 96% and a number of specialty practices (Hsiao and Hing 2012). The results from the NAMC survey estimate, however, that more than 82% of physicians in office based practices in Arizona used some form of EMR in The use of paper records alone in Arizona declined from nearly 46% to 12% between and Utilization of EMRs in combination with scanned files increased nearly threefold from 12% to 32%. The use of EMRs in combination with paper and scanned files increased by a slightly larger multiple, suggesting that many of the new adopters of EMRs were physician practices that had previously begun a transition from paper records to scanned records. The process is one of gradual transition from paper records and scanned records to EMRs rather than the complete translation of existing records to EMRs. Our data do not address the transition from paper to EMRs, but one can imagine strategies that create EMRs for new patients or previous patients if they continue to seek care, while leaving the records of patients who may not return for care in their original format. Another possible influence is the absence of electronic networks for the exchange of clinical information. In a summary of several surveys reported in Information Week, 80% of organizations with EMRs also use paper records (Terry 2012). The Information Week article, citing various sources, reports that many practices with EMRs receive faxes and paper documents from other practices because electronic interfaces are not available. Many of the documents are scanned or entered into the EMRs. The reliance on scanning in conjunction with EMRs suggests another reason for the proliferation of scanned documents in firms with EMRs. A Multivariate Model of the Determinants of EMR Adoption & Information Exchange We use multivariate logistic regression models to: (1) estimate the influence of various characteristics on the use of EMRs; and (2) measure the extent to which the characteristics of EMR users affect the extent to which they exchange information with others. The odds ratios are a measure of the influence of a particular characteristic, such as age, on use of an EMR, all else equal. An all else equal effect is the marginal influence of a measured characteristic, such as age, holding the effects of all other characteristics (e.g., type of practice, gender, location, specialty etc.) constant. The variables added to the results affect all the 26

27 estimated coefficients by changing the content of the variables that provide the all else equal interpretations of the results. To use an example from Table 10 below, physicians age 25 to 34 are, all else equal, 3.7 times more likely to utilize EMRs in their practice than physicians age 65 and older. An odds ratio less than 1.0 indicates that physicians in a particular group are less likely than those in the comparison group to utilize EMRs. The first set of results estimate the probability of being an EMR user, comparing EMR users to all physicians. The second and third columns of results compare the number of physicians with EMRs who exchange information to all physicians who use EMRs. There are no significant differences, all else equal, between Osteopathic and Allopathic physicians. The odds ratios for types of practice can be ranked in terms of the odds that physicians use EMRs in each work setting relative to federal health care systems. None of the practice types reach as high a utilization rate as federal facilities, but there are important differences among the types of practices. Physicians in hospital owned group practices are most likely, all else equal, to use EMRs, with physicians in academic settings (presumably teaching hospitals) effectively tied with community health centers for second place. The odds are slightly lower for physicians in state or privately owned hospital systems. The odds of physicians using EMRs in the remaining practice settings are markedly lower than those in the top five. The odds ratios in the remaining types of practice range from for physician owned group practices to 0.05 for solo practitioners. The effects of age are measured relative to physicians in the 65+ age group. The odds of EMR use is at a maximum in the year age group (3.71) and only slightly lower among physicians age (3.38). The odds drop sharply for the year age to 2.36 and drop to 1.68 among physicians years of age. An inverse relationship between physician age and EMR use has been observed in every period from One can speculate that differences in age represent differences in the culture of the medical profession, established work habits, facility with computerized applications, and training. An additional correlate of age, which is especially important for solo practitioners and small physician owned practices, is that the relatively short durations before retirement make the 27

28 Return on Investment (ROI) to implement EMRs too low. The cost of purchasing a system is the most important single barrier cited by physicians in the NHCS Physician Workflow Survey (Jamoom, et al. 2012). 28

30 Women physicians are slightly less likely, all else equal, to use an EMR than are male physicians. Physicians who practice in the urban counties of Maricopa and Pima are neither more nor less likely than physicians in the other counties of Arizona to use EMRs. The odds ratios for the influence of each specialty are measured relative to physicians in a hospital based specialties. All else equal, primary care is the only specialty that has a significant influence on the use of EMRs relative to hospital based specialties. Exchanges of Information The results in the second and third columns of Table 10 estimate the odds ratios for the exchange of information among physicians who use EMRs. The six functions defined on this survey for the exchange of information are Patient Care Summary, Prescriptions (e-prescribing), Lab Test Results, Reminders for Guideline Based Interventions, Public Health Reports, and Quality Metrics (HEDIS, AQA etc.). The Partially Connected physicians are defined as users of at least one of their EMR s functions to exchange information with others. The Fully Connected physicians are those who use all six functions to exchange information to others. Approximately 2,171 or 42.6% of physicians with EMRs are Partially Connected and only 136 or 2.7% of physicians with EMRs are Fully connected. The small sample of fully connected users is not, in our opinion, sufficient for stable estimates. We present results for the fully connected group but defer discussion until a larger sample is available. The only significant influences on the exchange of information are the type of practice and physician specialty. The practice types that are most likely to exchange information are the physician owned group practice, with solo practice a close second relative to federal government practices. Physicians in community health centers are the next most likely to exchange information with others. Private hospital systems are the only practice type that is not significantly different from federal organizations. 30

31 All the specialty groups have large significant effects on connectivity, with primary care the most influential. One can speculate that the results for primary care reflect the effects of the Medicaid and Medicare incentive programs but that suggestion requires additional study. The results suggest that the characteristics of individual physicians (age, gender) that are significant influences on the use of EMRs do not influence the exchange of information once an EMR is adopted. Older physicians are, for example, least likely to adopt EMRs, but once an EMR is adopted, there are no significant age related differences in the extent to which physicians exchange EMR data with others. It appears that the exchange of information depends primarily on the environment in which physicians work. As we indicated in the previous section, a major obstacle to the exchange of information is the absence of electronic networks (health information exchanges) that are necessary for exchanges to occur. The extent to which connectivity is determined by intraorganizational factors versus the availability of health information networks will require additional study. Our results include exchanges within a practice or a single hospital system and exchanges between organizations. Exchanges among different organizations such as between hospital systems or among physician owned solo or group practices are much less frequent. Trends An advantage of the ongoing CHiR survey is the ability to track trends in the use of EMRs and an array of associated characteristics over time. Improvements in the electronic version of the survey were achieved at the costs of some loss of between-year comparability for some questions. The survey questions for previous years included, for example, only two specialty groups rather than the five classifications in current use. The categories for types of practice were also expanded and the content was changed to eliminate some internal inconsistencies. Other important questions, such as the types of medical records in use (EMR, paper, scanned and combinations) are the same and comparisons of EMR utilization rates over time are appropriate. The definitions of partially and fully connected are completely changed with the availability of much more detailed survey questions on the availability and use of the functions embedded in EMR software packages. The changes limit comparability of the multivariate results over time. Inferences at a very general level are possible, including longitudinal differences among the 31

33 55-64 only 1.7 times as likely to use EMRs as the 65+ age group. The negative relationship between physician age and the use of EMRs is one of the most striking features of the results from previous years as well. Age is not the only influence on the use of EMRs, but the gap in utilization rates between older and younger physicians will gradually disappear as the younger physicians replace retiring older physicians. Osteopathic physicians were more likely than allopathic physicians to have EMRs in , but there are no significant differences between DOs and MDs in or in There are no significant differences in EMR use between Maricopa and Pima County physicians or between them and physicians practicing in more rural counties (the omitted group). Utilization of EMR Functions The functions included in EMR software packages vary among vendors. In addition, the selection of functions included varies among physicians. The results describe the extent to which key functions are included in physicians EMRs; the extent to which physicians use those functions; and the extent to which information is exchanged with others by physicians who use the functions. Specifically we examine inclusion, use and exchange for each of the following: Patient Care Summary Prescription Function Lab Results Function Reminders Intervention Function Public Health Reports Function Quality Metrics Function There is variation in the extent to which the functions are included in EMR software. Although there are some variations by type of function, approximately 4,900 physicians answered the question. 33

34 Table 12. Utilization of Available EMR Functions* EMR Functions Included in EMR Used by the Respondent Number/Percent Exchanged with Other Providers Number /Percent Lab Results 3,720 3, % 1, % Patient Care Summary 3,765 3, % 1, % Prescription e-prescribing 3,523 3, % 1, % Reminders for Interventions 2,296 1, % % Quality Metrics (HEDIS, AQA, etc.) 1,463 1, % % Public Health Reports 1,701 1, % % Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: *The data in this table effectively treat Don t Know answers as No since the questions ask for the respondent s experience, not for the practices of other physicians in the same organization. The data in this table only include those physicians that answered Yes to the Include question for each EMR function. Furthermore, the data only includes those that answered both the Used and Exchanged questions for each EMR functions; if either question was left blank the physician was excluded from the table for that function. The most frequently used functions are the Patient Care Summary and Lab Results functions. The latter probably reflects the long standing practice of electronic reporting by Sonora Quest Laboratories. The pre-existing reporting systems simplified the inclusion of laboratory results in EMR software. The third most prevalent function is E-prescribing and the information is, as expected, the most likely to be exchanged since by its nature, electronic transfer is required. It is curious, however, that less than one-half of those who use the function also exchange the information. The Quality Metrics function is least often included in EMRs among the six functions with the Public Health Reports function only slightly more prevalent. Reminders for Interventions are more prevalent and are used by more than 80% of physicians with access to the function but the information is the least likely of the functions to be exchanged. Presumably this reflects the absence of electronic mechanisms for corresponding with patients. The use of EMRs is the necessary condition for the realization of the benefits of EMRs, but it is not sufficient to reach that goal without adequate methods of exchanging information. The very low percentages of physicians who exchange their EMR data with others are a significant obstacle to achieving the benefits of EMRs.. 34

35 Figure 7. Summary Utilization of Available EMR Functions 100% 80% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 92.3% 91.4% 89.3% 75.6% 77.9% 81.5% 60% 47.6% 40% 35.1% 32.5% 30.9% 35.1% 20% 19.7% 0% Included in EMR Used by the Respondent Exchanged with Other Providers Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: The data in this table only include those physicians that answered Yes to the Include question for each EMR function. Furthermore, the data only includes those that answered both the Used and Exchanged questions for each EMR functions; if either question was left blank the physician was excluded from the table for that function. Quality metrics and required reports such as reportable diseases are reported by other methods, including , faxes and separate electronic networks. Although the information is not lost, EMRs would be a more efficient and timelier means of delivery. The marked disparity between the use of EMRs and the sharing of information is a consistent feature of all the previous CHiR surveys, although the previous results are less detailed. It is also likely that the results overstate exchanges of information that occur between physicians in different practices or different hospital systems. Our results include exchanges within a practice or a single hospital system and exchanges between organizations. Exchanges between different organizations such as hospital systems or among physician owned practices are much less frequent. 35

36 The most important obstacle to the inter-organization transfer of electronic health information is the shortage of Health Information Exchanges (HIEs). The history of HIEs linking different organizations is one of frequent failure, largely traceable to the absence of viable business models (E Health Initiative 2012). The lack of HIEs also forces practices with EMRs to exchange information via fax, requiring the recipients to continue to use paper or scanned documents in addition to their EMRs (Terry 2012). The Health Information Network of Arizona (HINAZ) is striving to solve the problems that have hampered the expansion of HIEs, but it does not yet provide service to the majority of Arizona physicians. HINAZ has the following participants (Bharathan, K, Executive Director of HINAZ 2013): 11 hospitals, including 4 Critical Access Hospitals 7 health plans 3 community health centers 1 reference laboratory 7 clinics 3 long term care facilities 1 county corrections department One promising feature of HINAZ is the involvement of the seven health plans. The economic benefits of exchanging patient information directly accrue to payers. The unnecessary costs of duplicate testing, treatments required because of prescription errors, and other information related problems are borne by the organizations that assume economic risk, including insurers and health care organizations that provide capitated care. Thus, they are also the primary economic beneficiaries of exchanges of information that reduce avoidable negative outcomes of care. Utilization of EMRs by Vendor The survey includes, for the first time, questions enabling physicians to evaluate their EMRs on usability, functionality and a number of other important characteristics. The 36

37 results are, however, subject to the possibility that the rankings by physicians in the second year ( ) of the two renewal cycle could differ from these first year ( ) results. The questions are new so we cannot judge the likelihood of differences between the two years. The distribution of EMR brands by number of users is described in Figures 8 and 9. One peculiar feature of the results is the large number of EMR users who do not know the brand of software they are using (Table 13). Large surveys always include responses that are erroneous. These responses result from misunderstandings of the question because of a respondent s inattention or from poorly designed questions. Table 13. EMR Users Unaware of EMR Vendor Name by Type of Practice, (N = 631) Type of Practice Number of Physicians Percent Physician Owned Solo Practice % Physician Owned Group Practice % Hospital/Medical School Group Practice % Community or Rural Health Center % Federal Government Hospital or Clinic % Private Hospital System % Non-Hospital Private Outpatient Facility % Medical School, University Research Center % Health Insurer/Pharmacy/Health Related Organization without Provision of Care 0 0 State or County Hospital System 2 0.3% Other % Total % Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: N represents the number of physicians who answered Don t Know for this survey question. 37

38 The survey question that asked for the vendor or brand name of the EMR used by a respondent included 21 brand names and a category for Other with an associated blank for the name to be written in by the respondent. Slightly more than 950 physicians answered Other and an additional 631 physicians who used EMRs did not know the brand name of their EMR. Physicians who answered Other were given the opportunity to enter the name of their EMR software as a text field in the survey instrument. Text entries are inherently cumbersome to characterize and convert to data. The text entries are being analyzed by reviewing the brand names in the write in section of the question and will be included in the next report in this series. The analysis to date reveals a very large number of different EMR software packages that typically have very few users. The results are an example of the challenges to be faced in standardizing EMR software and providing for interoperability. Previous years results show that only approximately one-third of physicians using EMRs were either the decision maker or participated in the choice of an EMR package. We expected that the Don t Know responses should disproportionately be found in large organizations such as hospital systems but nearly 67% of the don t know respondents worked outside of hospital settings. It was most surprising that 9.1% of solo practitioners could not identify their EMRs. One implication of the results is that many physicians using EMRs are not communicating their evaluations of their EMRs to the EMR vendors. In large hospital systems, the feedback may be provided by physicians in management or information technology (IT) roles, but in smaller organizations, it appears that valuable information concerning the performance of EMRs is being lost. 38

39 Figure 8. EMR Use by Vendor 70 Users 1, Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: The Other vendor includes all vendors contracted with government hospitals/clinics. 2,820 physicians did not respond to the survey question on vendor name. Figure 9. EMR Use by Vendor < 70 Users Source: AMB, ABOE Survey Data, Note: 2,820 physicians did not respond to the survey question on vendor name. 39

PHYSICIANS USE, EXCHANGE, AND EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS SEPTEMBER 2015 Sponsored by and Prepared for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) ISA Number YH14-0039 under the

THE USE OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS AND PHYSICIANS ATTITUDES TOWARD A HEALTH INFORMATION EXCHANGE JULY 2012 Sponsored by and Prepared for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) Arizona

THE USE OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS AND PHYSICIANS ATTITUDES TOWARD A HEALTH INFORMATION EXCHANGE FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2010 Sponsored by and Prepared for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System

On the Road to Meaningful Use of EHRs: A Survey of California Physicians June 2012 On the Road to Meaningful Use of EHRs: A Survey of California Physicians Prepared for California HealthCare Foundation

Challenges with Meaningful Use EHR Satisfaction & Usability Diminishing Will Underwood, MPH Alan Brookstone, MD DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the author

Number 75 n May 20, 2014 Trends in Electronic Health Record System Use Among Office-based Physicians: United States, 2007 2012 by Chun-Ju Hsiao, Ph.D., M.H.S., Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality;

DataWatch Which Physicians And Practices Are Using Electronic Medical Records? Survey data show limited use of these information tools. by Catharine W. Burt and Jane E. Sisk ABSTRACT: Greater use of electronic

This report was revised on January, 203, after a problem was found with the weighting of the 20 survey data. NCHS Data Brief No. 98 July 202 Physician Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems: United

Michigan Department of Community Health Survey of Physician Assistants Frequency Report by School 1 INTRODUCTION Since 2007, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) has conducted annual surveys

SHARP: An ONC Perspective 2010 Face-to-Face Meeting Wil Yu, Special Assistant, Innovations and Research Wil.Yu@HHS.gov Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) President

What does Meaningful Use mean to office-based physicians? Eric Jamoom and Chun-Ju Hsiao National Center for Health Statistics AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting June 24, 2013 National Center for Health

2013 Pulse of Pennsylvania s Dentist and Dental Hygienist Workforce A Report on the 2013 Survey of Dentists and Dental Hygienists Volume 6, September 2014 Bureau of Health Planning Division of Plan Development

Whitepaper Meaningful Use Stage 1: EHR Incentive Program Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Daw Systems, Inc. UPDATED: November 2012 This document is designed to

Receipt of Medicaid and Medicare EHR Incentive Payments by Physicians in New York Highlights By September 2012, 11% of licensed physicians in New York had received either a Medicaid or Medicare EHR incentive

Toward Meaningful Use of HIT Fred D Rachman, MD Health and Medicine Policy Research Group HIE Forum March 24, 2010 Why are we talking about technology? To improve the quality of the care we provide and

C A LIFORNIA HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION s n a p s h o t The State of Health Information Technology in California 2011 Introduction The use of health information technology (HIT), defined as the software used

Meaningful Use Objectives The purpose of the electronic health records (EHR) incentive program is not so much the adoption of health information technology (HIT), but rather how HIT can further the goals

This checklist provides a look into Ohio s Medicaid Provider Incentive Program (MPIP) system for eligible professionals and may be used as a guide to help eligible professionals gather information that

Status of Electronic Health Records in Missouri Hospitals HIDI SPECIAL REPORT JULY 2012 HIDI SPECIAL REPORT INTRODUCTION The steady progress that Missouri hospitals continue to demonstrate in their adoption

Michigan Department of Community Health INTRODUCTION The Michigan Department of Community Health asked Public Sector Consultants Inc. (PSC) to conduct a survey of licensed pharmacists in 2005 to gather

Arts Education in Arizona Public Schools for the 2012/2013 School Year An Analysis of the Arizona Highly Qualified Teacher Database Prepared for the Arizona Commission on the Arts and the Arizona Department

Meaningful Use Overview Meaningful use is the use of a certified electronic health record (EHR) to demonstrate improved quality and safety of health care delivery for a patient population within a clinical

Health Information Technology in the United States: Information Base for Progress 2006 The Executive Summary About the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing

A REPORT TO THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE Financial Audit Division Arizona County Community College Districts and Colleges of Qualifying Indian Tribes Debra K. Davenport Auditor General The Auditor General is

Version: 6122008 Rhode Island Health Care Quality Performance (HCQP) Program This survey asks about physicians' use of health information technology (HIT) and should take less than 10 minutes to complete.

Electronic Medical Records 101 Jack L. Shaffer, Jr. CIO Community Health Network of West Virginia A quick word about the Community Health Network of West Virginia The Network is a tax-exempt, non-profit

December, 1999 Dear Health Care Professional: In 1998, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a law dealing with credentials verification. That law directed the Board of Health to promulgate rules and the Oklahoma

Maine Rural Health Research Center Research & Policy Brief PB-58 September 2015 Adoption and Use of Electronic Health Records by Rural Health Clinics: Results of a National Survey John Gale, MS; Zach Croll,

Produced by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions Issue Brief: Physician perspectives about health information technology 2 Foreword The national debate around health care reform and the quest for a

MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 Summary of Proposed Rule (EP) The Meaningful Use Stage 2 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) has been released and entered a 60-day comment period (March 7-May 6, 2012). HealthInsight

Electronic Prescribing Guide Establishing a Computer-to-Computer Connection Between Your Practice, Payers and Pharmacies Electronic Prescribing Guide This guide is provided to you by Surescripts, the Nation

3701-59-05 Hospital registration and reporting requirements. Every hospital, public or private, shall, by the first of March of each year, register with and report to the department of health the following

A REPORT TO THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE Financial Audit Division Arizona County Community College Districts and Colleges of Qualifying Indian Tribes Debra K. Davenport Auditor General The Auditor General is

President Obama Signs the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 --New Law Includes Physician Update Fix through February 2012-- On Friday, December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law

EHR Incentive Programs A program administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Eligible Professional s Guide to STAGE 2 of the EHR Incentive Programs September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS...